– Steve HitchenWhat has happened to our world? Last year the Western Bulldogs won the AFL premiership and tomorrow Richmond has its first chance since 1982; NRL's Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks won their first ever premiership last year, the Chicago Cubs won their first World Series Baseball title since 1908, it looks like the "Yes" vote is going to get up and now CASA has firmly enshrined "just culture" in its instructions. Either the tide is turning for the world's underdogs or society is going to hell in a hand basket, depending on your point of view. You heard right: even though the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) recommended the move to "just culture" and the general aviation industry has been crying out for it for many years, there are still those who would rather it not happen. You may not be surprised to learn that most (but not all) of those are either embedded deep within CASA or have departed since the ASRR. Shane Carmody's instructions enshrine a new level of fairness from the regulator, which stands not only to establish a better system of safety, but also to revitalise engagement and even inject some respect into CASA's relationship with the industry. There are some out there, perhaps even the clipboard-and-reflective-vest type, who would prefer CASA to be more police than polite, so we can expect that there are battles yet to be fought. These new rules should be taken as a sign that CASA is looking to deal with the aviation community on a much more engaged and mentoring level, but we have to understand that there is never going to be a situation where CASA turns a blind eye. Let's be blunt: there are people and operators within GA that regularly re-interpret the rules, and over the years CASA has pulled the pin on several. These new instructions are not designed to allow them to get away with it, but rather to give the honest mistakes a chance to be rectified. For the white hats, this should result in less reticence to engage with CASA, but for the black hats nothing has changed at all. CASA is still on their tails; they are not the underdogs who stand to benefit from this new attitude.

Quote:Sometimes the maths genuinely doesn't add up

Another harbinger of change (sort of) is the word that reached me about the delays to the BITRE study. From what I have been told, the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG) was not impressed with the BITRE analysis because it lacked correction for industry influence. You can take this one of two ways: either a sign that BITRE doesn't know what it's doing, or that the consultation system works! I'll opt for the second. BITRE would have buried themselves in statistics and papers, clacking away at calculators until all hours to crunch numbers until they reached what they thought was the bottom line. But sometimes the maths genuinely doesn't add up, or the crunchers don't know what the answers mean in the real world. That's where GAAG stepped in and injected some reality into the process, which is, I believe, the reason Darren Chester set up GAAG in the first place. Ten years ago or even less we would have been presented with the uncorrected drivel and dimissed it as yet another failure of the government to understand our industry. So having GAAG step in and BITRE go away and rework the analysis is, to me, good news. I won't declare it great news until the government actually recognises that reality and puts in place effective action.

Similarly, there are industry people who are hailing the Nous Group findings on the Multicom consultation another indicator of change. The report makes it clear that the aviation community prefers to use Multicom 126.7 when broadcasting at ALAs not marked on charts instead of the area VHF. The report lays out what we already knew: the general aviation community wanted one thing and CASA wanted another. The killer here is that CASA can make the determination and stick to it without any obligation to go with the majority. They have announced they'll formalise the policy by the end of October, but haven't decided to make it clear what that policy is yet. There are powerful influences arrayed against Multicom in this battle, including Airservices Australia and AMSA, so it is not a fait accompli that Multicom will win the day.

Stand-in Australian Flying editor Philip Smart has just locked down the November-December issue of the magazine. Philip took over from me for this one edition only, giving me a much less frenetic September that I would otherwise have normally had. Thanks to Philip and Yaffa Publishing for making this happen. Philip is the former editor of Aviation Business and has been writing for Australian Defence Magazine since John Monash met Ned Kelly, so he has the street cred in both aviation and journalism to ensure a great job. But this has delivered one thing to me that I didn't think it would: for the first time since March 2012, I am eagerly looking forward to my issue of Australian Flying arriving at home without already knowing what's in it and what it looks like! It's good to rekindle that feeling and be reminded of the impact the magazine has on its readership.

Congreve, writing in 1697, is not, today at least, an easy read. The play could be related – in simple terms – to Romeo and Juliette. There is however more to it than that simple tangle.

HEL. Have Hopes, and hear the Voice of better Fate.I've learn'd there are Disorders ripe for MutinyAmong the Troops, who thought to share the Plunder,Which Manuel to his own Use and AvariceConverts. This News has reach'd Valentia's Frontiers;Where many of your Subjects long oppress'dWith Tyranny and grievous Impositions,Are risen in Arms, and call for Chiefs to headAnd lead 'em, to regain their LibertyAnd Native Rights.

I’ve no idea where Carmody thinks he’s heading; none. But, I know the beast he’s dealing with and the obstacles he must remove to achieve his stated goals. He has been witness to the beast defending itself; every day, more and more evidence of past travesties are revealed. Those, have long been evident. How will he deal with them? That, and only that, is the question which demands answer; for all else is platitude and time gaining.

The ‘problem’ is known, the crimes exposed, those responsible are known. Will he dare to deal with them, directly, forcefully , openly and honestly; in full public view?

I like Congreve; one of his most abused lines should sound the warning, clear and loud:-

"Heav'n has no rage like love to hatred turn'd Nor Hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd."

Nick Xenophon has announced he's quitting the senate and heading back to South Australian state politics. Xenophon has been a key weapon and spokesperson for general aviation, especially through his directed attacks in the Senate Estimates hearings that put more than one CASA or Airservices CEO on the spot. Although it seems like GA is losing a powerful ally in Canberra, Xenophon is likely to be replaced in the red chamber by another Nick Xenophon Team member, so there may still be that extra avenue to put awkward questions to the regulators. AOPA in particular had a good relationship will Xenophon, and CEO Ben Morgan will be hoping he can keep that going with whoever takes Xenophon's seat.

Further on politics, Minister Darren Chester announced at the Safeskies conference in Canberra this week that we could be waiting up until the end of the year for the BITRE GA Study to be released. That's a disappointing result, but most likely caused by BITRE having issues working out what the numbers mean, and the government trying to craft a response that will draw the fewest arrows from the aviation community. For us, this is our future on the line; our last chance to revitalise our flagging industry. This report and the response to it will be the government's justification for nearly everything they do (or don't do) in the GA sector as long as they are in power. Truly, our fate is with them now, so it's understandable that the GA community is starting to lose a bit of patience.

Quote:... maybe it's time for Monday's Experts to come off the bench

People, it's time to suit-up! CASA has called for experts to join Technical Working Groups (TWG) to support the Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). This means CASA is after subject-matter experts to have a significant say on regulatory change and how it will work in reality. Some time ago, then CEO Mark Skidmore admitted that CASA was not the holder of all technical knowledge when it came to aviation safety, and it seems this attitude has been recognised with this call for experts. The question is: will the aviation community step up? When I chat with people in GA, I find there are two prevailing attitudes. The first is that "CASA needs help because its clear they don't know what they're doing, and we have to be that help"; and the second is that "CASA needs help, but why should I help the bastards!" The answer, to me, fits squarely in the "no-brainer" hole: GA can't continue to be regulated by a CASA that remains all at sea, and maybe it's time for Monday's Experts to come off the bench and help make the changes they themselves are crying the loudest for. But I can see how this Expert Register could become a punching bag. There are self-declared experts in GA that may sign-up to the register, then turn on it once they fail to be chosen for a TWG. But that's the downside. The upside is that CASA is effectively asking GA to participate in making the rules that govern it, and that is what I call genuine consultation.

Recreational Aviation Australia has expressed disappointment that CASA is not going to make the call on RAAus' attempts to get access to controlled airspace and a weight increase until next year. CASA has said that it doesn't make sense to put new measures in place before CASR Parts 149 (self-administering aviation organisations) and 103 (sport and recreational ops) are implemented. According to CASA, Part 149 should be done before the end of March next year, and Part 103 "soon after". You would expect then, that if RAAus was going to get access to CTA, and an MTOW increase to either 750 kg or 1500 kg, then CASA has made a decision already so it can be integrated into the new regulations. RAAus, and the general aviation community, would love to know what that is in advance so they can plan accordingly.

Is it possible that CASR Part 66 (maintenance licencing) is actually a bigger mess than Part 61? There's a subject for the next aero club happy hour! CASA has published some of the feedback from the Part 66 consultation, and there is clear indication that this is one of the more important suites to be implemented. Right now, the MRO industry can't get engineers and can't train engineers, all because of either regulation or serious issues with the training organisations. However, if you peruse the passionate responses from those that have assented to publication, you'll find that not everyone is on the same page. Do we harmonise with EASA or not? CASA has a lot to sort out here, and right now I think they are very pleased they've set up their Experts Register, because they are going to need it! Have a look at some of the submissions on the CASA website.

Airservices has repeatedly told us that the 900 people they made redundant has had no negative impacts on front-end services. If what they call "best effort" in locating contact details for 2000 ALAs and HLSs around the country is any indication then we can assume the redundancies have had a massive impact on back-end services. I mean, really Airservices? Your "best efforts" couldn't come up with contact details for Broken Hill Airport, possibly one of Australia's busiest non-capital-basin airports? It even has RPT ... did you think to ring REX? And the same could be said for so many sites mentioned in AIC A17-H29. Too many of them are commonly used airports that pilots seek (and find!) contact details for every day of the year. Colac, Tyabb, Evans Head, Warnervale, Lilydale, Sandfly ... all of these are commonly used. Can I suggest it probably would have taken nothing more than a browse through a country airstrip guide to find the contacts? And many of these airports actually have websites! OK, it's true that keeping the details up to date is the responsibility of the aviation community, and that same community needs to respond now and get this straightened out. But, please, don't tell us this was your "best effort" when its obvious there wasn't much of an effort made at all.

Quote:You see how this could get very large very quickly?

CASA's concept of an Expert Register has proven to be another division catalyst in Australian GA. A great idea at face value, and apparently nearly 300 people have jumped on board, but there are those in the industry that want to be paid for their expertise and time, which is not going to happen. There is some merit in the demand for remuneration, especially when you consider that CASA charges a not insubstantial amount to provide regulated expert services to the industry, including in instances where the CASA person actually has less expertise and experience than the person they're providing services to. Nothing in general aviation is cheap, and companies are struggling to make a buck, so it does seem reasonable that CASA should take the best people on a consultancy basis. Now for the flipside: there are hundreds of Australians who put in hard work every year and do it for the good of GA and not for the money. Should they be paid as well? You see how this could get very large very quickly? It is encouraging that 300 names have already been taken, and done so on the condition that they won't be paid, but it presents a larger problem for CASA: are they the right 300 people? I am happy to concede right now that many who have forwarded their own names may not really have the expertise and experience that CASA needs. It's an issue that is going to have to be managed carefully.

CASR Part 66 looks like it's doing orbits over a VOR somewhere. The feedback from the aviation community has strongly supported the position the MRO industry put forward when this who debacle kicked off. CASA was told that extending maintenance and licencing regulations for airlines to GA wouldn't work and it could even threaten the health of the industry. And they're still saying that. Part 66 will end up the great exemplar of regulation that was foisted on a industry, of consultation that really meant not so much as a jelly bean because the matter was a fait accompli before the industry was consulted, and of a desire to fix a situation that was never broken in the first place, just terribly inconvenient for the regulator. I am in total support of the MRO industry in this case. Part 66 won't work for general aviation because it was never designed to work for general aviation. So, CASA, are you really surprised that the feedback is telling you to go back to the way it was? Some tweaks were needed, but wholesale changes for the hell of it have left the industry sitting amongst wreckage. You were told.

There is now just under a month until Funflight 2017 on 12 November. This is a charity day in which we pilots get to put our skills to fantastic use flying sick and underprivileged children. If you haven't done one yet, find yourself a location close by and sign-up; you won't ever regret it. Funflight is so named because it is supposed to be fun for the children, but it's also great fun for the pilots, the organisers and the aircraft loaders as well. And it is the one of the most satisfying things you will ever do with an aeroplane, and it seems to me that many pilots are missing out by not getting involved. As for me, I've done about five of these, and I'll be back in there again this year. Go onto the Funflight website to find out more, and don't hold back if you and an aeroplane are available on the day. Give so that they may fly.

And I need to extend my thanks to Philip Smart who did a great job as stand-in editor of Australian Flying whilst I sat back and did not a lot during September. Phil's issue, November-December 2017, is out now and waiting for you to find it and take it home. Have a look here at the line-up, then go get.

This week's LMH is coming to you from the Regional Aviation Association of Australia annual convention on the Gold Coast. We had a good line-up of speakers yesterday including RAAA Chairman Jim Davis, ATSB boss Greg Hood and a very impressive presentation from Bankstown supremo Lee de Winton. So far, there seems to be a thread of optimism going through most speakers, although there is almost universal agreement that a lack of engineers and no effective way of training them is one of the greatest threats to the industry so far. With CASR Part 66 being consigned to a Technical Working Group, the solution may be at hand. Surely Australia has the means to fix this problem ourselves, after all, we once did it so well. Airfield charges are also set to come under scrutiny in the coming 12 months.

Quote:has there ever been a government report that everyone has been happy about?

Yesterday the first draft of the BITRE GA Study report was delivered into the hands of the members of the General Aviation Advisory Group. This is the report that the government's attitude to the future of general aviation hinges on. The GAAG members now have until 3 November to comment back to the minister. Although I have not seen the report as such, there are people who are telliing me there are things in it they are not happy about. That's to be expected; has there ever been a government report that everyone has been happy about (except maybe for the government)? Sometime between now and the end of the year, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will let us have a look at the final copy, which I presume will be the resultant of the initial draft corrected for the expertise provided by the members of GAAG. Or am I being too naive? I've been guilty of that before ...

And on the subject of reports that have been a long time coming, we are on the cusp of getting the ATSB Norfolk Island ditching report Mark II. According to Chris Manning, we should see it next #couple of weeks, but I'm not putting my life savings on that given the battering the ATSB copped over the initial report. You can guarantee they'll be looking to make sure this one is as healthy as it can be before it's released into the wild. Whatever the final report says, I doubt that anyone from the flight crew to Pel-Air,CASA or the ATSB is going to come out of this smelling like a Violet Carson. Hopefully, this report won't itself become the battle ground for the war to continue; people need closure on this issue, and even though some of us may not like the conclusions, we're unlikely to find reasons to demand a third effort. This, as they say, will be it. #P2 - see Hitch update on article link

Shane Carmody has picked up the thorny rose of predicting when regulatory reform will end. In his newsletter this month, he has said it will be all over by the end of next year; a little over 14 months away. CASA CEOs before him have pricked their thumbs on this, from Bruce Byron to John McCormick and Mark Skidmore. So far none of them have been right, and you have to ask if the person in which the ultimate power to make this happen can't make it happen then can we actually finish regulatory reform? To answer that, we have to understand why it has taken nearly 30 years to do the job, and many people are struggling to do that. Getting reform through CASA in the past has been like trying to drive a straw through a potato: there is so much resistance that the straw is likely to bend before the potato yields. It can be done, but only if you know how and hit the potato hard enough. Let's hope Shane Carmody knows how and can bring this saga to a close.

I believe Airservices is looking now at alternatives to its much maligned AIC H29/17, which threatened removal of ALAs and HLSs that didn't update their data. I have been told they are considering is a less onerous data specification for smaller aerodromes and helipads, which may also include a note or depiction on charts of how much confidence Airservices has in the details in their database. What we, the industry, need to do is make sure our part is done: getting the data up to date in the first place. As pilots, we rely on what we read in documents, plus asking owners, to find out as much as we can about the spot we're about to land on, so we stand to gain from Airservices having confidence in the data. Expect a revised AIC to come out in the next week or so, and also expect it to ask the industry how best to manage the database.

From a controversial and shaky start, it looks like Airventure Australia delivered the goods last weekend. Around 2300 visitors and 440 aeroplanes is respectable based on the past attendences at Narromine, and the same goes for the number of exhibitors. Most impressive is that the quality of the expo seems to have taken a huge step forward. From initially being housed in a hangar, to allocated spaces in a marquee, the 2017 exhibitors were housed in proper display stands with a floor. It might seem a small thing, but appearance does reflect professionalism, and people like to see professionalism at all levels of aviation, even from amateurs. Provided the organisers can stay away from the bitterness that dogged the event in May this year, Airventure Australia could now be on a footing from which it can grow into something very special for our industry. However, there is the issue about the fence. A large reo-mesh-style fence that separated the crowd from the aeroplanes, and the reasons for its existence are still a bit unclear. We can but hope the organisers find a better way next year to mitigate the risks. If we are to genuinely get to an Oshkosh atmosphere, the people need to feel they are a part of what's happening and not something to be kept at arms' length.

Hitch – “[and] even though some of us may not like the conclusions, we're unlikely to find reasons to demand a third effort. This, as they say, will be it.”

“Or am I being too naive? I've been guilty of that before ...”

With regard to Norfolk old mate, yes; I believe you are. The new ‘report’ into the incident is likely to be almost worthless in terms of examining the deeper, underlying issues; it has to be. The Campbell email almost states that the report will identify James as the sole culprit in the event and there is nothing else that matters. Magicians always have you looking where they want you to look; not where you should be looking. James is the distraction to the party trick, one must look elsewhere if the 'how to' of the ‘trick’ is to be discovered.

Many are certain (and even more believe) that for some as yet undefined reason, there is a need to exonerate the company and CASA of being any part of the ‘causal chain’. Then, there is the need to bury the audits and the rapid return to service of the Pel-Air operation; then, the suspicion of collusion between CASA and ATSB must be explained away to reassure the public that everything was above board and kosher.

But the big question is why? What possible motive could there be for the glaring anomalies and why would ATSB and CASA take such huge risks? They did, in the Senate inquiry, under oath giving evidence, they certainly did. Manning could have saved 500 pages of paper if to reiterate what was already known is his purpose. Maybe he has done us better service and been digging into the ‘weather report’ sequence and validity, that would be worth examining. Maybe he has dug deeply into the culture and training systems at Pel-Air, which would be helpful. He may have even gone whole hog and asked why CASA approved the operation as it stood. We must hope he did; then, perhaps we would get a balanced report. We shall see.

To put an end to the whole saga there really needs to be a separate investigation into the actions of the agencies; post event, for that is where the real story lays. PAIN has been quietly investigating these matters, following one breadcrumb at a time. The minister, the media and the general public may be satisfied with whatever is published by ATSB next week. But don’t bet your life savings on the report putting an end to the matter.

“Everything will be alright in the end. If things are not alright, it is not the end”. (Kipling or Lennon –my two bob on RK).

Perhaps the most surprising phone call I have ever answered started with the words "G'day, Steve. It's Ben Sandilands." I had been editor of Australian Flying only a few months and I was still in an amorphous period that was a mixture of being completely lost and panicking daily about whether or not I was doing justice to the mag's name and reputation. Then, out of nowhere, comes a phone call from a man who I knew was among the luminaries of aviation journalism in this country. What could Ben Sandilands want from the rookie editor of a GA magazine? This is the man who who regularly exposed the bones of industry leaders, politicians and regulators with his cutting, insightful analysis. His Plane Talking blog on Crikey was widely considered the go-to publication if you didn't have the skills needed to read between the lines of company press releases. He wasn't always popular with those on the end of his pen, mainly because his arguments were constructed like fortresses, and even if you didn't agree with him, you had no option but to respect his conclusions. All he wanted to do was tell me that he thought I'd done a good job with my first couple of issues. For years I presumed someone in the industry had put him up to it, but since, others have told me that this sharp-tongued, crusty curmudgeon that so many people respected was not past encouraging others to follow the aviation journalism path. Ben died last Friday. Over the ensuing years I had very little contact with him; general aviation was not his main focus. The last time I saw Ben he was in his natural environment: sitting down the very front of a press conference throwing a very-well considered and awkward question at an off-balance Alan Joyce. He was a joy to watch in full flight, and his loss leaves aviation journalism with a giant-sized hole in it

Quote:the minister might just be trying to get a mob of startled kangaroos to bounce in the same direction

Darren Chester has again called for industry unity in order to take a consolidated view on aviation into the coalition cabinet room. I am afraid the minister might just be trying to get a mob of startled kangaroos to bounce in the same direction. General aviation is a diverse industry, and athough knitted together with a common passion for flying, the demands and needs are varying, which inevitably draws very different views. The issue is compounded by self-proclaimed experts who are so blinkered they consider any thought that conflicts with their own as being bad for aviation. This is what our regulators and legislators have to deal with, and I really don't envy them the task of working out who the true experts are. I suspect this is one reason why Canberra is so keen to deal with The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) nowadays; they are at least an attempt to be united. But even within TAAAF there are divisions, most probably because TAAAF reflects the very diversity in aviation that is causing the clash of views in the first place. We are, by our very nature, a fractured mob.

That's not to say we are at loggerheads with ourselves over every issue, and the responses to the low-level frequency discussion paper were united enough behind the Multicom to convince CASA to change their advice. Do not be deceived by what might seem a trivial matter; there were people within the regulator that were very staunch in their support of the the Area VHF as the most appropriate frequency, so to have public opinion sway the regulator against their own people is a very big deal indeed! So to whom do we throw the bouquets? I am going to credit the Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committees (RAPAC) with going to war over this, and former CASA CEO Mark Skidmore, who recognised enough merit in both arguments to send the matter to a discussion paper. However, all this means is that we are on the turn and heading for home; we are not over the line yet. The change needs to go to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) before the CAAP advice is altered, and that means more consultation and feedback. Given the strength of support coming from the DP, it is hard to see the Area VHF proponents making any headway from here on in, but certainly there is still resistance to be encountered.

Graphical Area Forecasts (GAF) start next Thursday. This is a big change to the way we are delivered vital information, so it is up to every pilot to make sure they are very familiar with what they are seeing next time they download weather from NAIPS. In anticipation of the change, we included a comprehensive review of the GAFs in our November-December print issue of Australian Flying. Written by Andrew Andersen, who was part of the industry working group that helped develop the GAF, it will give you everything you need to know about the new system. So, if you haven't managed to get yourself on a flying school seminar or other avenue of learning, get a copy of Australian Flying and bone-up on what you'll need to know from 9 November onward.

Mike Borgelt • 2 hours ago
If Darren Chester wants to do anything sensible, most could unite behind, just adopt the FAA rules. Going with EASA was a disaster and a bad mistake.
There's no way we should be required to be united. We pay politicians to make those kinds of decisions where there are competing views.

Dear Steve, regarding naivety; your ‘mea culpa’ for past (optimistic?) unrealised hopes will definitely be a caution proven by inaction and feet dragging by the regulator into the foreseeable future. If CASA can’t revise what were, at least, fairly workable rules in the space of 30 years would anyone consider that this is a capable organisation?

The awful truth is that CASA is completely incapable and has wasted what should be a vibrant and growing industry. Millions down the drain, businesses down the drain, jobs down the drain and many individuals crucified on the CASA alter, an alter, Aztec like, of unfettered power.

CASA has no incentive to change, a draconian monopoly of lawmaker, judge and jury nothing will change, nothing has changed and to expect change is pure fantasy. CASA has no skin in the game, until that changes, nothing else will.

Qantas has reasserted its refusal to allow its pilots to use Lord Howe Island’s only human ­adviser for runway and weather conditions, saying it would continue to follow the effective ban set by the aviation safety regulator.

The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau has also said it will not investigate the hard landing of a turboprop Beechcraft King Air 200 on the island late last month, despite suggestions the banning of civil pilots from acting on advice from the harbour ­master may have contributed to the accident.

The aircraft, carrying five ­people, made a hard landing onto the tarmac, damaging a wing and propeller, after encountering a downdraft.

Experts said the plane would probably have to be shipped back to the mainland for repairs.

The ATSB had found the aircraft encountered no controllability issues upon landing. No one was injured.

The ATSB said it had reviewed the information and was not investigating. Lord Howe Island harbour master Clive Wilson had been providing on-the-ground weather advice to pilots coming in to land at one of the most dangerous airports under the Australian flag since 1956 until the Civil Aviation Safety Authority refused to renew his licence in 2012 unless he spent $20,000 completing a new meteor­ological course.

Mr Wilson, who is a volunteer, has been unable and unwilling to meet that requirement and the ­result is fewer resources available to pilots, which many see as red tape putting lives at risk.

Veteran former Qantas pilot Bill Hamilton, who said he had flown into Lord Howe under the instruction of Mr Wilson many times over the years, said CASA’s action was “mindless bureaucracy” taking over common sense.

“It most certainly affects safety, Lord Howe is a very difficult place to land and I know from personal experience you have to be very, very careful going in and out of there,” Mr Hamilton said.

The ATSB, responsible for ­investigating crashes, said it ­received “over 15,000 notifications annually”, had “limited resources” and would investigate only those accidents “which have the greatest potential for improving transport safety”.

“In this particular case, after carefully reviewing the information provided by the operator and taking into consideration the local conditions a decision was made not to investigate,” an ATSB spokesman said.

Qantas said it was “comfortable” with the weather bureau ­information provided to its pilots, but declined to comment further. CASA said Mr Wilson was “free to make broadcasts” but pilots “cannot rely upon this information”.

Mr Wilson said given the ­extreme weather conditions on Lord Howe, the two BoM automatic weather information service stations at the airport often contradicted each other.

Eastern Air Services, the operator of the damaged Beechcraft King Air, did not respond to ­repeated requests for comment when contacted by The Australian.

Comments of note - :

Quote:Garry

Staggering example of safety compromised by bureaucracy.

Opening themselves up to being legally pursued in the event of an accident.

Would not like to be in that depts. shoes!

MickTheRationalist

No one is ever held accountable in govt depts.

Matthew

@Garry Don't worry, we'll be paying for it!

Alexander

Big part of the problem Mick, not departments; 30 years ago they were turned into statutory bodies and virtually independent. Hence no political control, practically no accountability apart from a few embarrassing moments at Senate Committee hearings. But what the heck the CEO (title Director of Air Safety, up there on $600,000 pa Cloud 9 with baton directing traffic) has a five year contract to spin out, easy enough. Another couple of multi million dollar fact burying enquiries should do the trick. Alex in the Rises.

graham

Spent a fortune looking for MH370 with very little hope of achieving anything, versus an open and shut case of 'Billy Bureaucrat making a Blue'.JELG

Good on ya Clive. Keep it up and tell the bureacrats to shove it. The world need good experienced people, not more machines. As a former Delta pilot, I would listen to the AWIS and then give you a call. And I know which I would listen to more. Nothing, absolutely nothing, beats local knowledge.

Andrew

" ... “mindless bureaucracy” taking over common sense." This extract sums up so much of what's wrong with Australia. You'd think that a real CSIRO type could come up with something like Calici that targets bureaucrats.

Ray

@Andrew add politicians to that list, Andrew.Alexander

Thank you Anthony and the Australian for lifting the lid on the scandalous sink hole that is the administration of flying and flying safety in our once beautiful country, now renamed Bureaucratalia. Uncovering the stupidity and hubris of the (Un) Civil Aviation Safety Authority, now it belatedly says the Harbour Master is free to make broadcasts. Let’s pretend that the pilots will hear useful advice but won’t consider the content. Let’s pretend with ATSB that there’s no controllability problem when a $4 million passenger plane on scheduled service is severely damaged on landing at an airport that is known for extreme conditions. Let’s pretend that there’s no winking or nodding between ATSB and CASA to avoid any suggestion of less than perfection from our superb regulators. In particular CASA that’s overseen the destruction of General Aviation through a rule of fear and administrative nightmares and fee gouging that has cost thousands of jobs, reduced flying schools from hundreds to a handful all the while increasing its own numbers and salaries. Alex in the Rises.

David

@Alexander This is something that Joe public should be made well aware of. CASA have hidden behind the "safety" mantra too long for the uninformed public and spineless politicians to be aware of the damage that they have done to General Aviation, both in a commercial sense and the mistaken belief that they enhance safety. In fact, they are a hindrance to safety. 30 years to revise the aviation regulations and all they can come up with is the current mess that is the dreaded "Part 61" of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations. Not a hope of an investigation into this latest incident - too much mud on their hands and no one able to call them out as they are a law unto themselves.

Phil

Sadly accurateBarry

Find the name of the person that made this decision, bring them into the daylight and ask them to justify the decision (and their pay)

PR

Ah the Australia I have come to know. The red tape has to be followed. If someone dies, it's all OK because the red tape procedure was followed. After all, we all know the BOM's reputation for accuracy - how can the BOM fiddle the results to fit there models if there is someone taking real actual measurements?

Reminds me of working in hospitals. If some clinical person failed to do all there paperwork, high risk of sacking. If a person spends all there time on paperwork, and there is consequently a patient dies from lack of attention - that is OK because the paperwork was all done! Philip

Time for the Minister to earn his pay and sort out his bureaucrats.

Alexander

@Philip; Come now Philip give Minister Chester a break, he told us at Tamworth last year that he knows nothing about aviation. Besides the independent Commonwealth corporate body CASA is full of highly paid experts and if he made commonsense decisions on the basis of industry advice the system would break. He would be responsible ! No no no. Alex in the Rises.Botswana O'Hooligan

The bureaucrats concerned in this Canberrain anecdote would be in the bureaucratic version of paradise now so it is safe to write about them. They issued a directive to we coastal surveillance aviation people that we had to complete a radio course applicable to shipping before we could communicate with shipping by radio for our flight radio telephone licences didn't cover shipping. As a person in authority I told the bureaucrats that unless a person on a boat or ship had a flight radio telephone operators licence and could prove it we aviators wouldn't talk to them either. Canberra had a bit of a think about that, must have calculated that it was best to leave sleeping dogs lie, and the matter quietly died.

Phillip

@Botswana O'Hooligan Similar yarn, my aircraft sales company had imported a new small biz jet into Australia with the hope of putting it on the register here and selling a few.

The manufacturer offered pilot courses in the US for company pilots and the CASA flight ops inspectors.

However CASA where not happy with that and wanted my company to send 4 engineering types to Japan and the US over a 2 month period to study that the aircraft complied with Australian engineering standards ( the country that brought you the NOMAD) despite being certified already by the FAA, CAA, JCAB and numerous other knowledgeable authorities. It took 2 years to reach a compromise and the company had lost interest and the aircraft returned to the US.

Kenneth

Stuff the pen pushers in Canberra I always chat to Clive before leaving the mainland and on the way in to the island (and so do a lot of the Qantas pilots). This is a prime example of the massive over regulation that is encouraged by an ever bigger, bloated public service and which is rubber stamped by weak politicians who do not have a clue about their departments. The waste and inefficiency it causes is killing this country.

Three times yesterday I got picked to do the explosive test at various domestic airports, what a bloody joke. It is an enormous waste of time and money and for what? Anyone who thinks a potential bomber is going to be stupid enough to leave residue on their clothing is a fool.

I was reminded again this week what flying is really all about. My flying club, Lilydale Flying Club, took off in brilliant weather for Bathurst (yes, we even had a tail wind), then endured two days in the Blue Mountains in weather best described as "sodden". Then, in clear blue skies we departed Bathurst on cup day for the long haul home (head wind this time). The next day, e-mails flooded in from all the flyers enthused about the great weekend we'd had. But hang on ... the weather whilst we were in the Blue Mountains was hideous! Why would people love such a great time when there was little to go and see? We spent hours in the minibuses and sheltering in cafes! The answer is because the company was fantastic and a lot of laughs echoed through the restaurants that hosted us each night. Yes, it reinforced my opinion that flying is about people, not aeroplanes. It also showed me that the destination is not as important to a succesful fly-away as the people who make the trip. More evidence came in the help we got from both Temora Aero Club, who provided a great place for lunch on the way up, and Bathurst Aero Club who greeted us with coffee and a nice selection of cakes and biscuits ... all whilst trying to set up the club rooms for their annual awards night. We did not expect it, and the hospitality extended to us was somewhat humbling. Thanks Temora and Bathurst; it's people like you that make flying what it is.

Quote:sometimes you have to take one for the team

TAAAF has released three policy papers, which they sent through to CASA CEO Shane Carmody three weeks ago. The papers cover perhaps the three most vexing issues facing the general aviation community at the moment: engineering training, flight training and GA revitalisation. The timing of these three papers seemed to be to coincide with another internal restructure at CASA, and also to get in ahead of the next Aviation Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) meeting due in a couple of weeks. TAAAF has managed to position itself as the primary aviation lobby group in Australia, simply by applying commonsense to issues, and in most cases, articulating the forum's position clearly. I hear regularly that both CASA and the Department are pleased to deal with them for two reasons: they are seen as a professional organisation with a lot of street credibility, and TAAAF represents the best chance for both CASA and the department to get the consolidated position from the industry that they so crave. Greg Russell and the TAAAF team are working the ropes of ASAP to get the industry's points of view into the heart of the change process, which is possibly the best avenue the industry has to get itself heard. It is true that not everyone agrees with the positions TAAAF takes (not even all TAAAF members), and the 457 visa issue is but one of them. What the industry doesn't need now is for the dissenters to take their bats and balls and go home just because they didn't win on one issue. Sometimes you have to take one for the team, and in this case "the team" is general aviation.

Have you had to use your first Graphical Weather Forecast (GAF) yet? The Bureau of Meteorology introduced them for the first time yesterday, superceding the old Area Forecast (ARFOR) that had confused us for many years. Are there others out there like me that are still a bit bewildered despite the reams of training material available? There is still a lot to get used to, and slowly the confusion will disappear, but there is one immediate thing that perhaps could be looked at. The ARFORs always had the area data at the beginning, with the TAFs and NOTAMs coming next. Now it's reversed: the GAFs and Grid Point Wind and Temperature (GPWT) come after the long stream of location-specific material. As navigators, the thing we need to know the most is the area winds, not the winds in the TAFs, which are ground-level only. So why aren't the area winds at the beginning? It would save a lot of scrolling. I am still to delve deeply into the GAFs and GPWT charts, but am sure with a bit of homework it will all become second nature.

The 2018 Outback Air Race is now officially open and waiting for you to nominate your team. This event has become somewhat of a fixture on the Australian GA calendar every three years, raising both hell and money as they charge across the vast Australian nothingness in aid of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Next year's event departs from Archerfield on Sunday 19 August and finishes in distant Broome, WA, on 31 August, covering over 2000 nm, and including overnight stops at some of Australia's most iconic aviation destinations, including Bundaberg, Longreach, Adels Grove and Kununurra. If your sense of adventure could do with a good fix, log onto the Outback Air Race website and nominate your team soonest. If nothing else, it will guarantee you a lot of yarns to tell at the aero club when you get back.

I often wonder if the people within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority believe that aviation is an inherently safe thing to do. Do they believe that if they all took two weeks off aeroplanes would start crashing at random? The question has been prompted this week by some of the demands CASA is starting to place on air show organisers, and a sudden increase in focus on not the people at the show, but third-party spectators who are not involved. These third parties are those that might be going about their own business and out of the blue an aeroplane crashes on them. Given that these people live near an airport, they are exposed to that potential, but microscopically small, risk every day. So does the presence of an air show increase that risk? According to CASA it must do or they wouldn't be suddenly getting into a lather about it. The pilots in the air show are all CASA-approved by virtue of their licence, the planes are all CASA-approved by virtue of the CoA and the air show activities are also CASA-approved. So, why when you put them all together at an air show is it suddenly more dangerous to people not at an air show? The basis is in the Hawker Hunter crash in the UK a couple of years back, where people who were not at the show became victims. But, I ask myself would this crash have had this impact had it happened on an ordinary Sunday and not at an air show? Probably not, because there have been almost no crashes in Australia not at air shows that have impacted whether or not an air show gets an approval. Yes, the people around have to be warned, but when CASA starts asking "what are you doing to prevent people sitting on that hill over there watching?" I have to wonder if they're over-stepping the mark.

Quote:"..it's hard to see how the name change reflects what the airport actually does.."

A great opportunity has, I believe, been missed in the re-naming of Essendon Airport. The new name, Essendon Fields, reflects the name of the commercial development around the airport, which makes it a nothing name really. In a recent article published in Australian Flying, it was put forward that Essendon services Melbourne city, and had that not caused confusion with Tullamarine, would have made a good new name. I really can't see that most of the traffic that uses Essendon is going to the surrounding developments, so it's hard to see how the name change reflects what the airport actually does. It could have been named after a pioneer with connections to Essendon, like Jimmy Melrose, which I think would have made the Fox and Beck families a few new friends. As it is, the unimaginative name of Essendon Fields stands to do little more than be advertising for the surrounding development, which will go down like a lead Lockheed with the aviation community.

That Paul Tyrrell has popped up at AHIA has to be of very little surprise to most people in the industry. Paul is a very smart operator who also has a passion for the aviation industry. AHIA has grown and become very robust and active since it came into being only a few years ago, but people at CASA be warned, the appointment of Tyrrell represents a sharpening of the association's teeth.

Here's an opportunity for you: for 24 hours only next week, on-line retail behemoth Amazon is going to be selling e-book copies of Owen Zupp's Without Precedent for only $1.49. This book is a beautifully written account of Zupp's father's career flying in both WWII and Korea, and the incident that led to him being theoretically awarded a US Purple Heart. If you haven't yet added this book to your library, now is the time to consider it ... you won't be able to do it much cheaper than this ever again. Go onto Amazon to check out the deal.

Congratulations to Paul Olsen of Wagga Wagga, NSW, who has scored himself a Lightspeed Zulu 3 headset! Paul won our Lightspeed subscription promotion, and is now the owner of what I believe is one of the best ANR headsets on the market. Thanks heaps to Lightspeed for letting us give this away.

Hitch – “According to CASA it must do or they wouldn't be suddenly getting into a lather about it.”

They are ‘getting into a lather’ for one, simple reason – at the end of the long, flawed, much abused system – they are ‘responsible’. Full stop. No one can break wind without ‘official’ permission, let alone dare to actually fly an aircraft in a manner which they fail to understand. You can; quite legally kill your fool self provided you do it in a legally sanctioned manner i.e. CASA approved. Once all those little boxes are ticked; you can do whatever the hell pleases you best –and; all is well. Consider the forgotten Mallard crash, in Perth, at an air show. Carmody went to considerable lengths at estimates to describe the process of establishing the ‘legality’ of the operation – that process put a pile of pressure on the pilot; who just kept saying ‘yes’ so as to be part of ‘the show’. Not one of the CASA ‘experts’ checked the performance envelope data for the aircraft. That was left to a pilot with little experience, who, after the ‘legal’ work out and last minute approval, was probably too wound up to stop, think; and, ask the big question. Can I fit the aircraft into the little box they have allocated?

“The pilots in the air show are all CASA-approved by virtue of their licence,

Legal – but operationally capable?

the planes are all CASA-approved by virtue of the CoA

But the performance envelope? Did anyone of the experts have a little look? – just to be sure – to be sure?

and the air show activities are also CASA-approved.

To be sure? All activities – including a very public fatal prang were all CASA approved.

So, why when you put them all together at an air show is it suddenly more dangerous to people not at an air show?”

Not so. You just need to be hit by a drone or; be in a building close to the operating airspace surrounding a ‘shopping experience’ to be in harms way – not, mind you, that this has anything to do with CASA.

No Sir – Strictly no liability is the approved and ‘robustly’ defended policy.

No son, fill it up again – I may sit here a while yet; quiet like and think on how bloody lucky we are to have the legally safe system we do; and, how happy I am to contribute to it. Then I may hit myself with a brick, have another and walk home.

The aviation community probably has a right to expect that the saga of the Norfolk Island ditching has finally been put to bed with the release of the second investigation report. Fat chance, Charlie; all the indications are that the war is set to continue. After copping it in the neck from the senate and the Canadian TSB over the standard of their initial report, and having then Chief Commissioner admit that he was not proud of the report, the ATSB has looked under every rock imaginable with the re-issued report, perhaps too many rocks. The 531 pages released stands to be one of the largest reports ever done on an Australian accident, and slaps on the wrist have been handed out liberally to just about everyone involved. So, we may (or may not as some people still think) now know what happened between Samoa and Norfolk island that night back in 2009, but what will fuel new fights is that we don't know what happened since. How is it that the original report and this one are so far apart? Even the ATSB admits that they gathered a lot more info about the accident during the second investigation, which leaves us asking why that information had not been gathered for the first one. Conspiracy theories aside, it is plain that something happened in the halls of Canberra to produce a report that was, at best, sub-standard. We need to find out what that was, and prevent it from happening again, because whatever it was, it clouded safety messages and prevented positive action from being taken. Look what happened when that influence was removed ... 531 pages compared with the original report's 78. Nope, the book isn't closed on this story yet; you can bet on a sequel. P2 - Well said Hitch, you can take that to the bank.

Quote:it looks to me like a crack has opened in the brick wall and some light is shining through

CASA's proposal to allow Part 141 helicopter schools to teach a 105-hour CPL is the sort of news story that impacts only a small section of general aviation, but if you read the CASA statement thoroughly, you will come across this line, which is one the entire industry needs to sit up and take notice of: "The new regulations would be based largely on those that existed prior to the introduction of Part 61". I want to go through my understanding of this line again; is CASA saying that they are ditching this section of Part 61 and going back to the way it was before, which is what the industry always wanted? If so, let the bells ring out! Yes, this is only a small win in a niche sector, but it looks to me like a crack has opened in the brick wall and some light is shining through. If this crack can open, then others can, leading eventually to the wall CASA has presented over Part 61 collapsing completely. Even the most cynical of GA analysts is writing this one down in the "Win" column of the scoresheet. It does make you wonder, though, how this is different from allowing Part 141 fixed-wing schools from teaching the 150-hour CPL. What's good for the Bell is good for the Bonanza, and if a Part 141 school can teach helicopter pilots to be good, efficient and safe helicopter CPLs in 105 hours, surely they can do it for fixed-wing pilots in 150.

Kyneton Aero Club, in the Macedon region to Melbourne's north-east, invited me out to their Open Day last Sunday and to witness the presentation of the their Aero Club of the Year Wings Award. It's always good to visit vibrant, healthy aero clubs, as I believe that they are one of the main pillars that support GA in Australia. My point is that most people who get pilots' licences stop at the PPL level, so they are in this game for the pure delight and exhilaration that it brings. However, so many of them drop off over time, and I believe that is because they struggle to find things to do with their flying privileges. That's where aero clubs come in. The cameraderie they provide, the seminars they organise and the events and fly-aways they hold are the things that will keep PPLs coming back on weekend. We need good, healthy clubs and more of them to keep people wanting to learn to fly, and to give them a reason to fly once they are qualified. Kyneton is an exceptional example of that theory in practice, and their Open Day was a brilliant way to connect with the community around them. Thanks to Warren, Mark and the team at KAC. It was a great day ... and the snags weren't half bad.

While on the AIOS inflicted CASA I note that yesterday, when Captain Manning was tripping the light fantastic on the PelAir MKII coverup report, Carmody was in a reciprocal orbit of his own in this month Fort Fumble weasel word confection...

As we approach the end of 2017 there are three key issues I am pushing towards resolution. These are reforms to the aviation medicine system, radio frequency use at low levels in uncontrolled airspace and drone regulation. While it will not be possible to make regulatory or other changes before the end of this year, I do want everyone in the aviation community to be clear about CASA’s intent on these policies and for action plans to be under development where required. CASA has conducted consultation on all three issues and we have reached, or are developing, policy positions that reflect the legitimate interests of people across the aviation community while ensuring we get appropriate and optimal safety outcomes. As in everything we do CASA is striving to find the right balance between safety, operational flexibility and sensible rule making.

I know there is keen interest in the reform of aviation medicine, with 164 responses submitted to our discussion paper on the topic. After carefully looking at the responses we are close to finalising positions on a range of aviation medical changes, including streamlining the medical process for private pilots. Much of this work is based on the latest assessment of medical risks, along with a goal of removing unnecessary red tape where this is possible without impacting safety outcomes. I believe the aviation community accepts the need for medical standards and assessments in key operational positions, as long as the requirements are proportional to the risks. Of course risks are never static, so we do need to review our requirements when appropriate, which is exactly what we are doing. I expect to announce proposed medical changes before the close of 2017.

A notice of proposed rule making on low level radio frequencies will also be released before the end of 2017. This will set out how we will implement the decision to use the multicom frequency 126.7 below 5000 feet in class G airspace, as well as associated changes. Instrument flight rules traffic will still be required to monitor the relevant area frequency below 5000 feet and CASA will encourage visual flight rules traffic to do the same. In the area of drone regulation we are completing the analysis of the feedback to the recent discussion paper on the future of regulation for this sector. Initial analysis shows a high level of support for both some type of drone registration scheme and a level of mandatory training for people flying drones. With the continuing rapid growth in the drone sector there are clearly important regulatory decisions to be made in 2018.

Best wishes

Shane Carmody

New approach to surveillance outcomes

A number of important changes have been made to CASA’s approach to safety surveillance. Surveillance findings are now being presented in a simpler and more easily understood format. The aim is to clearly link surveillance findings to safety outcomes, encouraging a genuinely collaborative approach between CASA and the aviation community to maintaining and improving safety. There are now three levels of surveillance findings – safety alerts, safety findings and safety observations. Safety alerts are issued to identify regulatory deficiencies that require immediate attention by the aviation authorisation holder that has been audited or checked. Safety findings, which were previously known as non-compliance notices or NCNs, identify regulatory issues that require timely attention by the authorisation holder but are not urgent. Safety observations are issued when CASA finds areas where safety performance could potentially be improved. There is no change to findings in relation to aircraft defects, which will continue to be raised as Aircraft Survey Reports – known as ASRs. CASA is also taking a more proactive approach to sharing information as part of surveillance activity. During the exit meeting at the end of surveillance activity CASA will wherever possible advise authorisation holders of any potential findings, including safety alerts, safety findings or safety observations. These findings will be provisional but the early sharing of this information will give authorisation holders the chance to immediately start working to resolve any issues. Surveillance findings will be formally confirmed in writing after full consideration and review. The surveillance changes have been made in response to recommendations made in the Australian Government’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review.Find out more from the surveillance fact sheet.

Regulatory challenges have been set

CASA is challenging itself to produce aviation safety regulations that are reasonable and relevant. That’s a key message from the chair of CASA’s Board, Jeff Boyd, in the 2016-17 annual report. Mr Boyd says: “CASA’s Board is working closely with the organisation to drive a practical approach to regulation. We have set some ambitious targets for the release of all outstanding regulations and we will meet them by working to a deadline with defined deliverables and being transparent by making the regulation reform timeline public. We have demonstrated also, through the delay in releasing the fatigue management rule set, for example, that we are prepared to stop and review whether our proposed solutions are fit for purpose.” Mr Boyd adds there has been a shift in the way CASA regulates, as well as a commitment to improvement and pragmatism, which has been driven by CASA’s regulatory philosophy. “That said there is little room for complacency: international, technological, economic and industry developments mean that the regulation of aviation safety must continually evolve and adapt. In response, CASA must regularly adjust and review its own activities and operations to ensure that the organisation remains fit for purpose in a rapidly changing environment. And we know we must do things efficiently and effectively, with a view to meeting the expectations of the Government while achieving satisfactory outcomes for the aviation industry.”

Aviation medical standards in Australia have been under scrutiny for years.

CASA to introduce New Basic Class 2 Medical Standard
29 November 2017

CASA will introduce a new aviation medical standard next year based on the Austroads commercial vehicle driver's standard.

To be known as the Basic Class 2, the new standard will require pilots to be assessed by a general practitioner only rather than a Designated Aviation Medical Examiner (DAME).

The Basic Class 2 will apply only to private VFR pilots and commercial pilots engaged in operations that don't involved fare-paying passengers. The new standard will also restrict PPLs to aircraft with no more than five passengers on board and will also exclude aerobatic flight, IFR and NVFR. A full Class 2 medical will still be required for those operations.

Basic Class 2 holders will be able to fly in controlled airspace.

Class 1 and Class 3 medical standards will remain unchanged.

The changes, to be implemented across 2018, come after medical reforms in the UK and USA, and CASA's own AVMED discussion paper, which elicited over 180 responses in March this year.

“CASA has been engaged with the aviation community and made a series of fundamental reforms to aviation medical certification," he said.

“We have initially focussed on changes that benefit general aviation because this sector has been telling us the current medical certification system was causing real difficulties.

“In the interests of public safety it is important that pilots meet relevant medical standards, but the system must not make unnecessary demands and should meet the needs of the aviation community.

“I am pleased we are making changes that will see more appropriate medical standards applied to flying training and aerial agriculture – two vital sectors of Australian aviation.

“CASA will now continue to review the aviation medical system to identify possible improvements in areas such as using medical data more effectively, further streamlining processes, further reducing CASA involvement in medicals and harmonising with global best practices.

“It is CASA’s role to maintain appropriate aviation safety standards but the requirements must not unnecessarily burden Australian aviation and hinder development and growth.”

Part of the reforms will see the Recreational Aviation Medical Practitioner's Certificate (RAMPC) dropped, with holders of Recreational Pilot Certificates and Recreational Pilot Licences going onto the new Basic Class 2 standard.

Wonders will never cease, CASA at long last shamed and prodded into talking some reform, for without doubt CASA would not have moved without industry pressure. Too bad the obvious shocker, leaving out IFR and Night VFR. Could have followed the US but CASA can’t help themselves, CASA knows best and our system must be unique.

Just tried to get more information from the CASA website but nothing showing there. A forlorn hope that they might publish such a measure in a business like manner, of course not.

So now to the nitty gritty, the devil’s in the details that so far remain, conveniently, unmentioned. Obviously didn’t want to spoil a good story. What about existing medical imperfections that thousands of pilots have? No doubt there’ll be all sorts of provisos and criteria to keep AVMED busy and many a Private Pilot frustrated with costs and extraordinary procedures like the insane ‘stay awake’ torture test recently perpetrated on one perfectly average and conscientious Private Pilot.

This way overdue reform, when (if) it happens will be a welcome start. I say ‘when’ advisedly because after watching CASA ruin a good industry and running a never to be finished rules rewrite over thirty years, still not finished, one can have no faith in CASA timelines whatsoever.

Yesterday's announcement of the new Basic Class 2 medical standard is not CASA's reform of aviation medicine in total; it is only one part of it. The AVMED department has been a worthy target of reformists in GA for at least 15 years, mainly because it has been a heavy burden on pilots for decades, and was only getting worse. High DAME costs, a lack of DAMEs, ludicrous questionnaires, bewildering decisions and processing fees for doing not a lot robbed AVMED of any credibility and isolated it from the aviation community. Various CEOs promised reforms and delivered nothing, so Basic Class 2 represents the first real improvement to an AVMED system that needs a lot more improving. Basic Class 2 captures a very large chunk of Australia's private pilot operations–less than six pax, VFR, piston engine–but it still has limited value in some areas. Aerobatics, for example, are not allowed on Basic Class 2. Asking around CASA, I was left with the impression that what they have done is reform the low-risk areas first whilst they try to gather information about how the Austroads standard will effect IFR, NVFR and aerobatics. Personally, I believe that evidence will show there is no reason why pilots can't fly almost unrestricted on the Basic Class 2, but that's something we all have to leave CASA to work out for themselves.

Quote:"..AVMED may be in for somewhat of a complete overhaul.."

Another part of the announcement was that some commercial operations will now require a Class 2 medical only, whereas before a Class 1 was needed. The big two are commercial ops without fare-paying passengers and flying instructors. Here CASA has recognised that ops like aerial ag and helicopter sling loading doesn't carry the weight of risk to general public that RPT and charter ops do, which is nice piece of commonsense; we've been asking for risk-based regulation for years. The whole idea of Class 2s for instructors is probably to allow CPLs and ATPLs who can't maintain their Class 1 to stay in aviation, locking in all those hours of experience rather than losing it all. But what we have to consider is that all this is only intent at this stage: there are no timelines and as yet CASA hasn't worked out how it will all function together, and what the real impact will be. However, having your GP do your assessment and CASA leaving the decision in the hands of your doctor is what we've been asking for. And there is more to come, I feel; AVMED may be in for somewhat of a complete overhaul.

But to many in the aviation community, these proposals are like being half-pregnant. Rather than go for a complete self-certification system like RAAus or the new FAA BasicMed, CASA's has based Basic Class 2 on a standard that is still reasonably rigid and still requires pilots to attend a medical centre. Because it's not the solution many wanted, they see it as just more rubbish regulation coming from Canberra. But there is another way of looking at it: Basic Class 2 will mean less cost impost both in doctor's fees and in the processing fee paid to CASA. It will mean people who don't have a DAME within cooee of home can wander down to see Dr Jones in the mainstreet for their medical, and it will mean the doctor seeing the patient is the one who gets to decide if they meet the requirements of fitness to fly. It sounds awfully like reform to me.

Cessna's new 408 SkyCourier came a bit out of the blue, as there hasn't been much clamouring for an aircraft that has this sort of capability. But then, if you have a launch customer like FedEx who wants to put deposits on 100 aeroplanes, I supposed you'd call that demand even if they never sold one to anyone else. The performance details, when they become available, will be of interest to companies like Viking, who builds the Twin Otter, and GippsAero, which is still contemplating resurrecting the Nomad as the Airvan 18. The SkyCourier has the potential to soak up quite a bit of demand in their cargo and short-haul passenger niches.

After my tirade about air display approvals the other week, I was pleased to hear that CASA is indeed going to bring all air display approvals under one roof, most likely the sport aviation office in Canberra. There's a lot of experience and enthusiasm for air shows and displays there, which means approvals should be easier and more transparent in the future. That doesn't mean lax; there have been some accidents here and overseas that have caused CASA to focus on mitigating risk to ensure these things don't happen again. There is still the problem that CASA can over-step the mark by insisting on measures that air show organisers don't have the legal clout to bring about, but hopefully a spirit of co-operation between the show organisers and the sport aviation office will prove capable of solving most issues so the shows can go on.